Abstract
The starting point is that the benefit/cost ratio is virtually uncorrelated to the likelihood of a Norwegian classified road project entering the list of investments selected for the National Transport Plan. The purpose of the article is to explain what pushes cost-benefit results into the background in the prioritization process. The reasons for their downgrading point to mechanisms that are at work not only in Norway. Explanatory factors are searched for in incentives for cost-ineffective action among planners, bureaucrats and national politicians, respectively, as well as in features of the planning process and the political system. New data are used to show that the road experts’ list of prioritized projects changes little after submission to the national politicians, suggesting that the Norwegian Public Roads Administration puts little emphasis on its own cost-benefit calculations. Besides, it is shown that the petroleum revenues of the state do not provide a strong reason for neglecting cost-benefit accounts. The overall contribution of the article is to offer a comprehensive explanation why professional and political authorities in Norway set road-building priorities diverging massively from those suggested by cost-benefit analysis.
Highlights
The starting point is that the benefit/cost ratio is virtually uncorrelated to the likelihood of a Norwegian classified road project entering the list of investments selected for the National Transport Plan
Even if costs and benefits to society are calculated for nearly every candidate road project to the National Transport Plan (NTP) in Norway, benefit/cost ratios do not influence on actual decision-making judging from the four plans that have been published since year 2000
The intention has not been to argue that the benefit/cost ratio should be decisive when setting priorities among projects on classified roads, but rather to highlight circumstances that tend to push cost-benefit analysis (CBA) results into the background
Summary
Even if costs and benefits to society are calculated for nearly every candidate road project to the National Transport Plan (NTP) in Norway, benefit/cost ratios do not influence on actual decision-making judging from the four plans that have been published since year 2000. Knowledge of factors hampering the uptake of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) results in democratic decision-making is useful to actors with an opinion on the role of CBA in planning, whether they aim to strengthen its political impact or keep it weak. Cadot, Röller, and Stephan (2006) analyse road projects in France, Hahn and Tetlock (2008) study regulatory decisions in the U.S, and Rogers et al (2015) investigate environmental decision-making in Australia. They all conclude that other considerations overshadow the CBA results. Traits of the planning process and the political system are examined by Hammes (2013) and Hammes and Nilsson (2015) for Sweden, Kemmerling and Stephan (2015) for France, Germany, Italy and Spain, Mackie, Urban, Planning and Transport Research 103
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
